50 Top Astronauts, Scientists Slam NASA For Promoting Man-Made Climate Change

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

Jem, why don't you just shut up. Don't pretend you adequately understand something in which you have absolutely no grounding. Just as you cut and paste shit you don't understand, I could have done the same by writing "The ultimate theory must be consistent and must predict finite results for quantities that we can measure. There must be a law like gravity, and for a theory of gravity to predict finite quantitie, the theory must have what is called supersymmetry between the forces of nature and the matter on which they act. Supersymmetry is a subtle kind of symmetry that cannot be associated with a transformation of ordinary space. One of the important implications of supersymmetry is that force particles and matter particles, and hence force and matter, are really just two facets of the same thing. M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity. For these reasons, M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. If it is finite -- and this has yet to be proved -- it will be a model of the universe that creates itself, because there is no other consistent model."

Do you actually have a working understand of what I just wrote? I don't, and I very much doubt that you do since you don't even understand the general science behind evolution, which is much more accessible.
So stop posturing with "my cut&paste is better than yours." Stop being a poseur.

yes i do... as you were posting I edited my post above and put it as simply as I could for you.

You have to understand that Science has no explanation of the fine tuning.. Other than the non scientific explanation there was super smart creator. so bottom up does not work for science. There is no theory of everything to explain how this tuning can be.

So Hawking goes with M Theory... and refines it to M Theory with a top down approach. So we are in the end product of a tree of choices.

But even then it is still amazing we are here to observe. So he brings in the unobserved idea of super symmetry to substitute for the Theory of Everything in M Theory or string theory.

Now going back in time it is still unreal given the initial parameters that we are here to observe. So how did this happen? How was all this fine tuning accomplished.

Well it happen because we are in a universe with gravity. Gravity is what makes this line of universes tick. If Gravity was not the way it is... we could not have the consistences of constants and matter which make a universe. Without gravity there would be no predictions and no universe (for us).

How is that for layman... in 5 minutes.

 

[Brass]

Quote from jem:

...Well it happen because we are in a universe with gravity. Gravity is what makes this line of universes tick. If Gravity was not the way it is... we could not have the consistences of constants and matter which make a universe. Without gravity there would be no predictions and no universe (for us)...

Yeah, I managed to grasp that part even without your help. But that hardly qualifies me (or you) to understand any possible and detailed disagreement between Hawking and Penrose and the relative merit of their disparate views. So it's back to mindless cut&paste. No thanks.

 

[jem]

Quote from Brass:

Yeah, I managed to grasp that part even without your help. But that hardly qualifies me (or you) to understand any possible and detailed disagreement between Hawking and Penrose and the relative merit of their disparate views. So it's back to mindless cut&paste. No thanks.

You can lead an et atheist to science but you can not make him think.

Penrose told you 10 to the 500 universes is conjecture, therefore a top down approach to explaining the fine tunings based on that idea from M Theory is also unobserved conjecture.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Brass:

Yeah, I managed to grasp that part even without your help. But that hardly qualifies me (or you) to understand any possible and detailed disagreement between Hawking and Penrose and the relative merit of their disparate views. So it's back to mindless cut&paste. No thanks.

And this same stunning arrogance also allows jem, astronauts and the AGW deniers here to know more than the climatologists.



Kudos Brass, you've done a yeoman's job of beating back on the abundant ignorance that's been on display here.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Kudos Brass, you've done a yeoman's job of beating back on the abundant ignorance that's been on display here.

Maybe you two should get a room. You're two peas in a pod.

 

[futurecurrents]

NASA employs sixteen thousand people. What percentage is 50 into 16000 ? What percentage of those 50 are ardent Fox News watchers?


The much hyped ice-age thing was media hype and was not a widely or strongly held opinion among scientists at the time. It sold magazines and papers. I was studying environmental science at the time and it was not talked about. There is simply no comparison to the vast supporting data and body of knowledge, not to mention computer power, that informs the current understanding of AGW.


Frankly this whole denial thing is getting more ludicrous with every new record high temperature, data point and new study, all of them supporting the models.

Simply, to be an AGW denier today is to be a fool. Even astronauts can be fools apparently.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

The much hyped ice-age thing was media hype and was not a widely or strongly held opinion among scientists at the time. It sold magazines and papers....

Reminds me of the current global warming hype.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

And this same stunning arrogance also allows jem, astronauts and the AGW deniers here to know more than the climatologists.



Kudos Brass, you've done a yeoman's job of beating back on the abundant ignorance that's been on display here.

This is what the left most desires in their drones. If the science conflicts with the propaganda do not try and understand the science and tell others they can't understand it either... Then make a sock puppet come in and cheer on the leftist ignoranace.

 

[jem]

Quote from Trader666:

Here's an example. Remember when I told you his latest book was nothing more than speculation but you "thought" otherwise simply because your science "god" wrote it?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Dg_95wZZFr4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

This is what the left most desires in their drones. If the science conflicts with the propaganda do not try and understand the science and tell others they can't understand it either... Then make a sock puppet come in and cheer on the leftist ignoranace.

You never did answer whether you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.